MilesBuzz! - Jetliner Lust Attracts F-16s

http://www.nydailynews.com/2002-02-13/News_and_Views/City_Beat/a-141259.asp

Arandy, drug-fueled romp in a New York-bound jet's rest room sparked a midair terror scare that sent a pair of F-16 fighter jets scrambling, authorities revealed yesterday.

But the red alert aboard American Airlines Flight 101 from London on Friday gave way to red faces when authorities discovered all the fuss was over two amorous British men.

Police said the passengers, whose names were not released, admitted smoking crack cocaine and having sex in the cramped rest room.

The miles-high ordeal began about 8:15 a.m. Friday on the London-to-New York flight, said an American Airlines spokeswoman.

Flight attendants complained to the pilot that the two men were acting suspiciously, making four or five trips to the rest room together.

"A captain had requested that the local authorities meet the two passengers at the gate at Kennedy," said airline spokeswoman Sonja Whitemon.

Air Force Listens In

Air Force officials overheard the captain's radio dispatch to American Airlines operations and sent two F-16s to intercept the jetliner over the Atlantic Ocean, said Federal Aviation Administration officials.

Whitemon insisted the airplane's crew did not ask for the military escort.

"The captain requested that that not happen because he didn't believe the situation was that serious, but it happened anyway," Whitemon said.

The two passengers were asleep when the plane touched down at JFK and were escorted off by Port Authority, Customs and FAA agents.

No drugs were found on the men, who were not charged with any crimes. Immigration officials denied them entry into the country because they admitted smoking crack in the rest room, law enforcement officials said.

The men were put back on a plane bound for London later Friday, officials said.


Original Publication Date: 2/13/02

Do they get FF miles for the return trip?

------------------
Without my wings, you know I'd surely die

Wow, how did the two of them fit in there in the first place, and who knows what they were capable of doing in such a tiny place.

Doesn't this kind of thing usually happen on TAROM Glam airlines ??? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by Carioca Canuck (edited 02-13-2002).]

See also:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum109/HTML/003796.html

Boy, we really do need a separate forum to discuss these unique issues.

Actually, the lav. on the left side in front of the J cabin (designed for handicapped access) in AA's 777 is bigger than my bathroom at home. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by FWAAA (edited 02-13-2002).]

Why didn't the smoke detector go off?

I'm not a big crack head, but so far as I know you have to light and inhale it. From the video I've seen the smoke appears to be the same consistency as cigarette smoke.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

Usually in these stories, some passenger is quoted as to how safe they felt being escorted by the F-16's. They forget that if their plane REALLY was in trouble, the F 16's would shoot them down.

Bet they are headed to Mykonos this summer

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Jakester:
Usually in these stories, some passenger is quoted as to how safe they felt being escorted by the F-16's. They forget that if their plane REALLY was in trouble, the F 16's would shoot them down.</font>

Excellent observation! That is exactly why those jets are there.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Jakester:
Usually in these stories, some passenger is quoted as to how safe they felt being escorted by the F-16's. They forget that if their plane REALLY was in trouble, the F 16's would shoot them down.</font>

yes, I suppose I would rather just let the trouble makers fly that plane into a crowded city and aim it for a big building. Or they could just let them fly around out there and see what they would like to do.

Quite frankly, if I were on a plane being hijacked (which I don't see happening again) with the 9/11 intentions, I would prefer that they do what is in the interest of the thousands below. That might not be what I would be thinking about at the time but in my current (somewhat)rational state of mind I think that sparing those below would be slightly more important.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Bouncer:
Why didn't the smoke detector go off?
</font>

Oh, never mind ...

[This message has been edited by cactuspete (edited 02-14-2002).]

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

It was tongue in cheek... so to speak.

OTOH they admitted smoking crack in the restroom.

That sucker (the smoke detector) shoulda been screaming unless they (say it with me now) "tampered with, disabled or destroyed a lavatory smoke detector, which is a federal crime".

But maybe not if you do it in international airspace, since you can apparently get away with at least smoking crack cocaine.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

[This message has been edited by Bouncer (edited 02-14-2002).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by AS Flyer:
yes, I suppose I would rather just let the trouble makers fly that plane into a crowded city and aim it for a big building. Or they could just let them fly around out there and see what they would like to do.

Quite frankly, if I were on a plane being hijacked (which I don't see happening again) with the 9/11 intentions, I would prefer that they do what is in the interest of the thousands below. That might not be what I would be thinking about at the time but in my current (somewhat)rational state of mind I think that sparing those below would be slightly more important. </font>

Whether you realize it or not you have just made precisely the same argument that you criticized another FTer for making in the thread about the absurdity of the current "[a false sense of] security at any cost" mentality.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/006380-2.html

The point being made by the FTer in the previous thread and yours here (whether intentional on your part or not) is that as a society we are constantly making choices that benefit the many at the expense of the few. Sometimes those sacrifices involve convenience, sometimes money, sometimes even human life (e.g., if we want to lower highway deaths why not lower the speed limit to 25 mph), and sometimes a combination of all of these.

I again find it curious at best that you feel shooting down a jetliner full of people to be a more reasonable response to a potential terrorist threat than doing away with all of the current security non-sense in exchange for a few reasonable procedures that might actually be effective. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif




[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 02-14-2002).]

"boys will be boys" http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I agree in general that we must sacrifice for the good of the masses. And this would mean we stop the silly security nonsense. We continue to plan for a return of the 9/11 scenario when it is so unlikely to ever happen. Yet, we are spending hundreds of millions, and I get billions on it anyways.

This is silly. Wasteful. And killing our economy.

So would this be

1. The High Mile High Club;

2. The Mile High High Club;

or

3. Mile High High High High High High Club (since they went multiple times?

and when the plane landed did they land too, or were they still High?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Carioca Canuck:
Doesn't this kind of thing usually happen on TAROM Glam airlines ??? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif
</font>

LOL

"Are you alright, Sir?"

"Oh, I... haven't flown in a long time."

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by anrkitec:
Whether you realize it or not you have just made precisely the same argument that you criticized another FTer for making in the thread about the absurdity of the current "[a false sense of] security at any cost" mentality.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/006380-2.html

The point being made by the FTer in the previous thread and yours here (whether intentional on your part or not) is that as a society we are constantly making choices that benefit the many at the expense of the few. Sometimes those sacrifices involve convenience, sometimes money, sometimes even human life (e.g., if we want to lower highway deaths why not lower the speed limit to 25 mph), and sometimes a combination of all of these.

I again find it curious at best that you feel shooting down a jetliner full of people to be a more reasonable response to a potential terrorist threat than doing away with all of the current security non-sense in exchange for a few reasonable procedures that might actually be effective. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif


[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 02-14-2002).]</font>

What I was saying in the last post supports this statement pretty well actually.

The other topic I posted under was to someone that was saying he would rather just go back to security pre 9/11 because this security is not convenient for him, and many others. This posting was to someone that things it's absurd that the air force would shoot down a plane headed for a crowded city center. I think both are ridiculous and completely self centered as are most of the anti-security sentiments on these boards.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by AS Flyer:
What I was saying in the last post supports this statement pretty well actually.

The other topic I posted under was to someone that was saying he would rather just go back to security pre 9/11 because this security is not convenient for him, and many others. This posting was to someone that things it's absurd that the air force would shoot down a plane headed for a crowded city center. I think both are ridiculous and completely self centered </font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tummyg:
So would this be

1. The High Mile High Club;

2. The Mile High High Club;

or

3. Mile High High High High High High Club (since they went multiple times?

and when the plane landed did they land too, or were they still High?</font>

ROTFLMAO

I think this is the all exclusive
high....mile highclub
hahahahah